Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 550.615 (2025)
Intertrack wagering.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
550.615 Intertrack wagering.—
(1) Any thoroughbred permitholder licensed under this chapter which has conducted a full schedule of live racing may, at any time, receive broadcasts of horseraces and accept wagers on horseraces conducted by horserace permitholders licensed under this chapter at its facility.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1), a pari-mutuel permitholder that has met the applicable requirement for that permitholder to conduct live racing or games under s. 550.01215(1)(b), if any, for fiscal year 2020-2021 is qualified to, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game and accept wagers on such races or games conducted by any class of permitholders licensed under this chapter.
(3) If a permitholder elects to broadcast its signal to any permitholder in this state, any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of ss. 550.615-550.6345 is entitled to receive the broadcast and conduct intertrack wagering under this section; provided, however, that the host track may require a guest track within 25 miles of another permitholder to receive in any week at least 60 percent of the live races that the host track is making available on the days that the guest track is otherwise operating live races or games. A host track may require a guest track not operating live races or games and within 25 miles of another permitholder to accept within any week at least 60 percent of the live races that the host track is making available. A person may not restrain or attempt to restrain any permitholder that is otherwise authorized to conduct intertrack wagering from receiving the signal of any other permitholder or sending its signal to any permitholder.
(4) In no event shall any intertrack wager be accepted on the same class of live races or games of any permitholder without the written consent of such operating permitholders conducting the same class of live races or games if the guest track is within the market area of such operating permitholder.
(5) No permitholder within the market area of the host track shall take an intertrack wager on the host track without the consent of the host track.
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), in any area of the state where there are three or more horserace permitholders within 25 miles of each other, intertrack wagering between permitholders in said area of the state shall only be authorized under the following conditions: Any permitholder, other than a thoroughbred permitholder, may accept intertrack wagers on races or games conducted live by a permitholder of the same class or any harness permitholder located within such area and any harness permitholder may accept wagers on games conducted live by any jai alai permitholder located within its market area and from a jai alai permitholder located within the area specified in this subsection when no jai alai permitholder located within its market area is conducting live jai alai performances; any greyhound or jai alai permitholder may receive broadcasts of and accept wagers on any permitholder of the other class provided that a permitholder, other than the host track, of such other class is not operating a contemporaneous live performance within the market area.
(7) In any county of the state where there are only two permits, one for dogracing and one for jai alai, no intertrack wager may be taken during the period of time when a permitholder is not licensed to conduct live races or games without the written consent of the other permitholder that is conducting live races or games. However, if neither permitholder is conducting live races or games, either permitholder may accept intertrack wagers on horseraces or on the same class of races or games, or on both horseraces and the same class of races or games as is authorized by its permit.
(8) In any three contiguous counties of the state where there are only three permitholders, all of which are greyhound permitholders, if any permitholder leases the facility of another permitholder for all or any portion of the conduct of its live race meet pursuant to s. 550.475, such lessee may conduct intertrack wagering at its pre-lease permitted facility throughout the entire year.
(9) In any two contiguous counties of the state in which there are located only four active permits, one for thoroughbred horse racing, two for greyhound dogracing, and one for jai alai games, no intertrack wager may be accepted on the same class of live races or games of any permitholder without the written consent of such operating permitholders conducting the same class of live races or games if the guest track is within the market area of such operating permitholder.
(10) All costs of receiving the transmission of the broadcasts shall be borne by the guest track; and all costs of sending the broadcasts shall be borne by the host track.
(11) Any greyhound permitholder licensed under this chapter to conduct pari-mutuel wagering is qualified to, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game and accept wagers on such races or games conducted by any class of permitholders licensed under this chapter.
History.—s. 47, ch. 92-348; s. 2, ch. 93-123; s. 17, ch. 95-390; s. 15, ch. 96-364; ss. 8, 9, ch. 98-190; ss. 13, 44, ch. 2000-354; s. 13, ch. 2002-2; s. 27, ch. 2021-271.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1999–2013 · leading case: Gulfstream Park Racing v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006).
Gulfstream Park Racing v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006). “The definitions section of the Wagering Act defines an "intertrack wager" as a particular form of pari-mutuel wagering in which wagers are accepted at a permitted, in-state track, fronton, or pari-mutuel facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or…”
Florida Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, 967 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2007). “The issue before this Court is whether section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Section 550.615 was apparently designed to increase revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by allowing intertrack wagering.”
Ocala Breeders'co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Centers, Inc., 793 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2001). “Jai Alai claimed that in the event that Breeders and another pari-mutuel business applied for a section 550.615 license, Breeders would always prevail because the criteria in that section essentially described Breeders.”
State, Dept. of Bus. v. Gulfstream, 912 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “This is an appeal from a final judgment declaring section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional.”
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “TBD argues that Gulf-stream’s agreements are unenforceable under the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 550.615 (3), Fla. Stat. § 550.”
Debary Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. State, Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Parimutuel Wagering, 112 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “, §§ 550.615(7), (9); 550.6805(9)(d), (f). Thus, when the Legislature intends to create a classification criterion with respect to the conditions that exist at a given time, as opposed to historical considerations, it knows how to do so.”
— 550.615(3) — 2 cases
Gulfstream Park Racing v. Tampa Bay Downs, 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006). “The definitions section of the Wagering Act defines an "intertrack wager" as a particular form of pari-mutuel wagering in which wagers are accepted at a permitted, in-state track, fronton, or pari-mutuel facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or…”
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “TBD argues that Gulf-stream’s agreements are unenforceable under the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 550.615 (3), Fla. Stat. § 550.”
— 550.615(6) — 2 cases
Florida Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, 967 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2007). “The issue before this Court is whether section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.”
State, Dept. of Bus. v. Gulfstream, 912 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “This is an appeal from a final judgment declaring section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional.”
— 550.615(7) — 1 case
Debary Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. State, Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Parimutuel Wagering, 112 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “, §§ 550.615(7), (9); 550.6805(9)(d), (f). Thus, when the Legislature intends to create a classification criterion with respect to the conditions that exist at a given time, as opposed to historical considerations, it knows how to do so.”
— 550.615(8) — 1 case
OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Section 550.615 was apparently designed to increase revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by allowing intertrack wagering.”
— 550.615(9) — 2 cases
OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Section 550.615 was apparently designed to increase revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by allowing intertrack wagering.”
Ocala Breeders'co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Centers, Inc., 793 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2001). “Jai Alai claimed that in the event that Breeders and another pari-mutuel business applied for a section 550.615 license, Breeders would always prevail because the criteria in that section essentially described Breeders.”
— 550.615(9)(a) — 2 cases
Ocala Breeders'co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Centers, Inc., 793 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2001). “Jai Alai claimed that in the event that Breeders and another pari-mutuel business applied for a section 550.615 license, Breeders would always prevail because the criteria in that section essentially described Breeders.”
OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Section 550.615 was apparently designed to increase revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by allowing intertrack wagering.”
— 550.615(9)(b) — 2 cases
Ocala Breeders'co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Centers, Inc., 793 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2001). “Jai Alai claimed that in the event that Breeders and another pari-mutuel business applied for a section 550.615 license, Breeders would always prevail because the criteria in that section essentially described Breeders.”
OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Section 550.615 was apparently designed to increase revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by allowing intertrack wagering.”
— 550.615(9)(e) — 2 cases
OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). “Section 550.615 was apparently designed to increase revenues at pari-mutuel wagering facilities by allowing intertrack wagering.”
Ocala Breeders'co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Centers, Inc., 793 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2001). “Jai Alai claimed that in the event that Breeders and another pari-mutuel business applied for a section 550.615 license, Breeders would always prevail because the criteria in that section essentially described Breeders.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.